Proof of God

[Individual]

Truth and facts do not "need" explanations or insertions.
Humans trying to discover facts and truth need explanations.
The reason evolutionists cannot explain the origin of life is not just because evolution itself is clueless about the origin of life, but also science itself is clueless about life's origin as long as it is stuck on stupid assumptions that some unknown godless miracle of nature must have been the cause and not God.

1. Then truth and facts exist without need of God?
2. And does God provide any useful explanations of nature?
3. Clueless is quite a strong claim, but what true, proven, provable knowledge has God actually provided us about the origin of life, or any other natural phenomena for that matter?
4. Clueless and stupid don't carry much weight in advancing/strengthening ones' views for me.
5. For me, a miracle would be something that could not possibly happen or exist. God comes closest to something fitting that definition.

 

[Angel]

And yet you have never engaged in that either in this thread, anywhere, or any other thread, nor can you link to any single instance of you having done so./

Please try and be less dishonest, but thanks, as always, for the unintentional irony.

Why do you hate god and claim there is no proof it her?

Your posts put one in mind of Dick Van Dyke.
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

 

[Angel]

The Philosopher's Handbook​

Q. What is God?
A. God is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi.

Q. What is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi?
A. Roughly, the necessary ground of all that exists.

Q. What is a "ground"?
A.

Raise your hands:

No. Because that is your ridiculous, illogical, purely philosophical attempt at an argument for god. It has nothing to do with morality.

Literary culture does not exist.

Still no proof of God just the same old worthless arguments that prove nothing

Why do you hate god and claim there is no proof it her?

 

[Individual]

1. The record speaks for itself. 2. No, I'm asking for good faith from you. You gave me sentence fragments twice whose meaning is anybody's guess. I've pointed this out to you and asked for a clear statement or an admission that you really don't understand -- you refuse to do either. That's bad faith. You insist on playing some game with me, like a test of will or something -- you did the same thing when you refused to discuss a point with me in the "God is Real" thread for no good reason. So be it.

1. I agree, the record speaks for itself. You constantly make accusations to avoid posting in good faith. And I have been asking for good faith in return.

2. In my post #3634 I provided you with two complete sentences, (1) Nature provides us an abundance of phenomena to view and study. That would be the "phenomena of nature", and you seemingly agreed by stating Yes, this is what the word "phenomena" refers to in both phrases -- "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature." Following, I continued with (2) Science attempts to discover useful knowledge relative to the nature of such phenomena having made great strides in, and continuing to advance, our knowledge by putting to use what has previously been learned. Which is "the nature of phenomena" that science studies to provide us knowledge that can be useful and applied with predictable results. If you continue to call that an example of "bad faith" then I can only conclude that you refuse to provide an answer recognizing the ludicrosity of what you would be providing. As a result of your previous postings, I also conclude that the reality is that you are incapable of more than posting assertions and/or attacking those who disagree.

Either put up or shut up.

 

[Angel]

...2. In my post #3634 I provided you with two complete sentences, (1) Nature provides us an abundance of phenomena to view and study. That would be the "phenomena of nature", and you seemingly agreed by stating Yes, this is what the word "phenomena" refers to in both phrases -- "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature." Following, I continued with (2) Science attempts to discover useful knowledge relative to the nature of such phenomena having made great strides in, and continuing to advance, our knowledge by putting to use what has previously been learned. Which is "the nature of phenomena" that science studies to provide us knowledge that can be useful and applied with predictable results. If you continue to call that an example of "bad faith" then I can only conclude that you refuse to provide an answer recognizing the ludicrosity of what you would be providing. As a result of your previous postings, I also conclude that the reality is that you are incapable of more than posting assertions and/or attacking those who disagree.

Either put up or shut up.

Funny thing -- in post #3634 I don't see any mention of "the nature of phenomena" or "the phenomena of nature" -- do you?

I've asked you to do so more than once now.

1. Nature provides us an abundance of phenomena to view and study.

2. Science attempts to discover useful knowledge relative to the nature of such phenomena having made great strides in, and continuing to advance, our knowledge by putting to use what has previously been learned.

Do the above complete sentences finally help you to present an answer to the question?

 

[Individual]

Funny thing -- in post #3634 I don't see any mention of "the nature of phenomena" or "the phenomena of nature" -- do you?

The post was answering your question about "the nature of phenomena" or "the phenomena of nature" and in the post below which you are responding to made that clear in case that escaped your ability to comprehend such.

1. I agree, the record speaks for itself. You constantly make accusations to avoid posting in good faith. And I have been asking for good faith in return.

2. In my post #3634 I provided you with two complete sentences, (1) Nature provides us an abundance of phenomena to view and study. That would be the "phenomena of nature", and you seemingly agreed by stating Yes, this is what the word "phenomena" refers to in both phrases -- "the nature of phenomena" and "the phenomena of nature." Following, I continued with (2) Science attempts to discover useful knowledge relative to the nature of such phenomena having made great strides in, and continuing to advance, our knowledge by putting to use what has previously been learned. Which is "the nature of phenomena" that science studies to provide us knowledge that can be useful and applied with predictable results. If you continue to call that an example of "bad faith" then I can only conclude that you refuse to provide an answer recognizing the ludicrosity of what you would be providing. As a result of your previous postings, I also conclude that the reality is that you are incapable of more than posting assertions and/or attacking those who disagree.

Either put up or shut up.

Still unable to present YOUR answer to the same question I see.
The game you seem to be playing is "I know something, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, so you prove me wrong...I win, you haven't proved me wrong." How childish.

 

[Angel]

The post was answering your question about "the nature of phenomena" or "the phenomena of nature" and in the post below which you are responding to made that clear in case that escaped your ability to comprehend such.


Still unable to present YOUR answer to the same question I see.
The game you seem to be playing is "I know something, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, so you prove me wrong...I win, you haven't proved me wrong." How childish.

Yes, I see that in #3679 you make the connections you failed to make forty-five posts earlier in #3634.
I also see you making out as if you had made those connections forty-five posts earlier.
And now I see you trying, after five pages of bad-faith posts, to pass off a post (#3681) as an example of your good faith all along.
Tell it to the marines.

 

[Angel]

Arguments 5-8​

5.

That which is necessary to explain the existence of an otherwise inexplicable state of affairs is its ground.
God is that which is necessary to explain the existence of an otherwise inexplicable state of affairs.
Therefore, God is Ground.

6.

Angel's Empirical Argument For God

The experience of the person I am in the world—my consciousness, my life, and the physical world in which my conscious life appears to be set—these phenomena comprise a Stupendous Given. There's no getting around them and no getting outside them and no accounting for them from within the phenomena themselves. These phenomena point to something beyond themselves. The attempt to account for these phenomena from within the phenomena themselves has given rise to science, art and religion and the whole cultural adventure we call "civilization"—the long human struggle for purchase on the Stupendous Given. In the end, however, the only account that accords with reason is the account that infers to a Stupendous Giver. In sum, from the existence of consciousness, the existence of life, and the existence of the physical universe, the inference to the best explanation is God.

7.

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible.

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary.

3. Hence, either God’s existence is logically impossible or else it is logically necessary.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not contradictory.

6.Therefore, God’s existence is logically necessary.[/B]

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

8.

1. If the universe were eternal and its amount of energy finite, it would have reached heat death by now.

2. The universe has not reached heat death (since there is still energy available for use).

3. Therefore, (b) the universe had a beginning.

4. Therefore, (c) the universe was created by a first cause (God)[/B]

The Necessity of God’s Existence: Ontological Arguments Worth Considering

 

[Individual]

Yes, I see that in #3679 you make the connections you failed to make forty-five posts earlier in #3634.
I also see you making out as if you had made those connections forty-five posts earlier.
And now I see you trying, after five pages of bad-faith posts, to pass off a post (#3681) as an example of your good faith all along.
Tell it to the marines.

And I'm still waiting for your answer.

 

[Angel]

And I'm still waiting for your answer.

And I'm waiting for your admission.

This is what you call "a Mexican Standoff."

 

[Quag]

I'm afraid this really isn't a valid claim to make Quag.

First "evolution" is a hypothesis, not really a theory in the formal sense used across most of the sciences.

Second it is poor science to refer to any theory or hypothesis as "fact" for example Newton's theory of universal gravitation was regarded as a fact for centuries but was later overturned by a different theory, a very different theory which uses different axioms.

So elevating natural selection to the status of "fact" is simply incorrect.

There is of course a great deal of observational data that is consistent with natural selection but consistent with is not the same as evidence for.

I like to ask those who regard evolution as a fact, a viable explanation for what we observe, to tell me what are some of the biggest problems with evolution? which observations are inconsistent with natural selection, surprisingly few advocates are able to answer this question.

Actually it is an observed fact.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific American Blog Network
8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

 

[Quag]

The Philosopher's Handbook​

Q. What is God?
A. God is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi.

Q. What is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi?
A. Roughly, the necessary ground of all that exists.

Q. What is a "ground"?
A.

Raise your hands:

Still no proof of God from you

 

[Quag]

Nobody has ever observed or recorded evidence of DNA alteration in evolutionary changes from one living creature to another. In addition, no scientific explanation has ever been developed with support from lab observations as to how plants evolved into vertebrates or vice versa.

Evolution must be believed by faith and not by sight.

Evolution is an observed fact see previous post

 

[Angel]

Number 9

WILLIAM PALEY

THE WATCH AND THE WATCHMAKER

https://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/rjohns/paley.pdf​

 

[Angel]

Still no proof of God from you

It appears you only raised your hand to go to the lavatory. Tsk, tsk.
Finished there, go to the library and ask old Miss Shusho to show you a dictionary entry for "ground," and then return and report the meaning to your classmates here.
And don't dawdle.

 

[Quag]

It appears you only raised your hand to go to the lavatory. Tsk, tsk.
Finished there, go to the library and ask old Miss Shusho to show you a dictionary entry for "ground," and then return and report the meaning to your classmates here.
And don't dawdle.

Not my fault YOU started a thread called proof of God then failed to even come close to providing such proof
I suggest you take some curses in logic and philosophy to understand why you failed so badly

 

[Angel]

The Philosopher's Handbook​

Q. What is God?
A. God is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi.

Q. What is the Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi?
A. Roughly, the necessary ground of all that exists.

Q. What is a "ground"?
A.

Raise your hands:

Not my fault YOU started a thread called proof of God then failed to even come close to providing such proof
I suggest you take some curses in logic and philosophy to understand why you failed so badly

The question you're supposed to be answering is "What is a "ground"?
Instead you're giving us typical Internet Skeptical dissing.
Get with it, man!

 

[Quag]

The question you're supposed to be answering is "What is a "ground"?
Instead you're giving us typical Internet Skeptical dissing.
Get with it, man!

The thread is about proof of God you have failed to provide any

Get with it man!

 

[devildavid]

The question you're supposed to be answering is "What is a "ground"?
Instead you're giving us typical Internet Skeptical dissing.
Get with it, man!

Ground, as you seem to be using it, is a made up philosophical concept with no basis in physical reality. It is make believe.

 

[marke]

Evolution is an observed fact see previous post

Nobody has observed evolution. They see things they think are evidences of evolution but are not.

 

[Angel]

The thread is about proof of God you have failed to provide any

Get with it man!

If you don't know what a "ground" is, why did you raise your hand. Sheesh!

 

[Angel]

Ground, as you seem to be using it, is a made up philosophical concept with no basis in physical reality. It is make believe.

Like all your posts, you mean?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Actually it is an observed fact.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific American Blog Network
8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

As I mentioned earlier there are indeed many observations that are consistent with the evolution hypothesis but consistent with is not evidence for, is not proof of.

In science a proposed explanation, hypothesis, theory stands or falls on whether observations emerge which are contrary to the empirical expectations of said explanation.

This is how the Copernican theory of the solar system with its circular orbits was eventually disproved, and later Newtonian gravitation and there are many more examples across the sciences.

It seems many evolution advocates are unaware of areas of observation that undermine evolution, very few ever seem to be aware of these.

 

[Individual]

And I'm waiting for your admission. This is what you call "a Mexican Standoff."

I've admitted I have no idea of what your distinction between the two terms is , though I have given you mine. I would call this bad faith posting on your part.

 

[Angel]

I've admitted I have no idea of what your distinction between the two terms is , though I have given you mine. I would call this bad faith posting on your part.

Show me the post (by number is sufficient) where you made such an admission and I shall apologize and provide the explanation forthwith.